Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Toughest Test in Cycling

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–29 of 29 posts

Re: The Toughest Test in Cycling

#21

Post by SixSigma »

lavamantis wrote: post #3

Right at the beginning of my obsession with cycling, I read about this record and it's most fascinating challenger: Graeme Obree. Nicknamed "The Flying Scotsman", he made his own bicycles out of washing machine parts and invented a few new riding positions before being banned by the UCI. Pretty interesting cat. http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/sportscotland/asportingnation/...

> It led to attempts like Chris Boardman’s successful one in 2000. He rode ... so far forward that his style was called the Superman position.

This sentence made my blood boil

Re: The Toughest Test in Cycling

#22

Post by SixSigma »

MikeKusold wrote: post #14
lavamantis wrote: post #3

Right at the beginning of my obsession with cycling, I read about this record and it's most fascinating challenger: Graeme Obree. Nicknamed "The Flying Scotsman", he made his own bicycles out of washing machine parts and invented a few new riding positions before being banned by the UCI. Pretty interesting cat. http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/sportscotland/asportingnation/...

You may enjoy the film based on his life. The Flying Scotsman http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472268/

Before watching the film, one should add that what Graham never revealed until recently is that many of his problems stemmed from the fact that he was repressing his homosexuality, much to his mental distress.

Re: The Toughest Test in Cycling

#23

Post by andrewfelix »

SixSigma wrote: post #21
lavamantis wrote: post #3

Right at the beginning of my obsession with cycling, I read about this record and it's most fascinating challenger: Graeme Obree. Nicknamed "The Flying Scotsman", he made his own bicycles out of washing machine parts and invented a few new riding positions before being banned by the UCI. Pretty interesting cat. http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/sportscotland/asportingnation/...

> It led to attempts like Chris Boardman’s successful one in 2000. He rode ... so far forward that his style was called the Superman position. This sentence made my blood boil

Why?

Re: The Toughest Test in Cycling

#24

Post by mrob »

teslaberry wrote: post #19
paulgerhardt wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose that really depends on what your definition of "fastest bike" is. Recumbents have gotten to 80mph - maybe topping out at 100mph. Eric Barone took his mountain bike to 130 by riding down a mountain. Matt Hoffman got a bit faster than that by jumping out of an airplane with his. François Gissy got a bit faster than that by strapping a few rockets on – 207mph. The UCI didn't bother to recognize this records ei…

i applaud you for your open mindedness. as a lover of bikes, and of recumbents, i kind of get annoyed at the very predictable 'recumbents are the fastest most aerodynamic bikes' thing that you get alot from folks. there might be many reasons the uci banned recumbents. but there is one primary reason recumbents never have and never will sell well; they are invisible in urban riding environment due to low seat height.…

If that's the case then why don't we see more faired uprights? It should be possible to greatly improve aerodynamics without much harm to weight or safety. I think it's because most R&D is spent on bikes at the top end of the market, where most customers are pros or want the same bikes as the pros. Even partial fairings could make a big difference, but we don't see them because they're banned by the UCI.

Re: The Toughest Test in Cycling

#25

Post by fian »

mrob wrote: post #24
teslaberry wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i applaud you for your open mindedness. as a lover of bikes, and of recumbents, i kind of get annoyed at the very predictable 'recumbents are the fastest most aerodynamic bikes' thing that you get alot from folks. there might be many reasons the uci banned recumbents. but there is one primary reason recumbents never have and never will sell well; they are invisible in urban riding environment due to low seat height.…

If that's the case then why don't we see more faired uprights? It should be possible to greatly improve aerodynamics without much harm to weight or safety. I think it's because most R&D is spent on bikes at the top end of the market, where most customers are pros or want the same bikes as the pros. Even partial fairings could make a big difference, but we don't see them because they're banned by the UCI.

Generally, adding fairings and other modifications to improve aerodynamics also increases the side-on area susceptible to crosswinds.

For uprights the rider is seated such that the centre or mass is relatively high compared to the faired/aerodynamic frame/wheels. If the bike has fairings or wheels covers that increase the side-on profile then a strong wind gust can push the bike out from under the rider. For this reason front wheel disks are banned from time trials and triathlons. There is too much risk that a crosswind gust can destablise the bike and rider.

For recumbents the rider's mass sits much lower to the ground, more centrally within this faired frame/wheels, so they are inherently more stable to the effect of crosswinds.

While I don't agree with all the UCI rulings, some of them regarding aerodynamic modifications are made with safety in mind. For example, triathlon style aerobars are banned from the peleton. This is primarily because the rider has less control over the steering and braking performance while in the aero position.

Re: The Toughest Test in Cycling

#26

Post by thwest »

SeanLuke wrote: post #15
thwest wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be interested in seeing recumbents used in individual time trials perhaps. However, they seem to be significantly less nimble which is flat out dangerous in the peloton. Their wheel base is longer, so I wonder if a peloton might actually be slowed by being spread farther apart. Also they are absolute trash for climbing.

How about small-wheeled bikes? The Moulton AM, a heavy, steel, fully suspended bike with 17" wheels, set the flying 200m faired world record in 1986, and it still stands. My understanding is that the current UCI rule which bans small-wheeled bikes (1.3.018) is a descendant of a rule specifically enacted to ban the Moulton. And not for safety reasons.

Do you have a link for the Moulton record? The Moulton site has a weird phrasing about top speed and doesn't provide the time. If there really is a design advantage to small wheels, I wonder what the physics there are. Large wheels are good on road where you will encounter potholes etc.

Anyhow, those small wheels are too ugly to be seen riding.

Re: The Toughest Test in Cycling

#27

Post by SeanLuke »

thwest wrote: post #26
SeanLuke wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about small-wheeled bikes? The Moulton AM, a heavy, steel, fully suspended bike with 17" wheels, set the flying 200m faired world record in 1986, and it still stands. My understanding is that the current UCI rule which bans small-wheeled bikes (1.3.018) is a descendant of a rule specifically enacted to ban the Moulton. And not for safety reasons.

Do you have a link for the Moulton record? The Moulton site has a weird phrasing about top speed and doesn't provide the time. If there really is a design advantage to small wheels, I wonder what the physics there are. Large wheels are good on road where you will encounter potholes etc. Anyhow, those small wheels are too ugly to be seen riding.

> Do you have a link for the Moulton record?

Sure. http://www.ihpva.org/hpvarec3.htm [Also http://www.whpva.org/land.html ]

Search for "Moulton". Also has a few other records as well. In fact, IIRC, there is no upright bike with an IHPVA speed record on that page that is not a Moulton.

> Anyhow, those small wheels are too ugly to be seen riding.

That's what penny-farthing people used to say about your bike.

Though small-wheeled bikes have their own disadvantages (gearing challenges, mechanical trail), all other things equal, large-wheeled bikes are slow. UCI's restrictions have basically held back the industry. :-(

Re: The Toughest Test in Cycling

#28

Post by SeanLuke »

thwest wrote: post #26
SeanLuke wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about small-wheeled bikes? The Moulton AM, a heavy, steel, fully suspended bike with 17" wheels, set the flying 200m faired world record in 1986, and it still stands. My understanding is that the current UCI rule which bans small-wheeled bikes (1.3.018) is a descendant of a rule specifically enacted to ban the Moulton. And not for safety reasons.

Do you have a link for the Moulton record? The Moulton site has a weird phrasing about top speed and doesn't provide the time. If there really is a design advantage to small wheels, I wonder what the physics there are. Large wheels are good on road where you will encounter potholes etc. Anyhow, those small wheels are too ugly to be seen riding.

> If there really is a design advantage to small wheels, I wonder what the physics there are. Large wheels are good on road where you will encounter potholes etc.

Meh. 17" wheels do great on the road.

So the physics is basically this.

DISADVANTAGES. Small wheels have a steeper angle of attack, so they're somewhat bumpier on tough surfaces. That's easily dealt with using a small full suspension to glue wheels to the road, just like it's done on motorcycles. Small wheels are more difficult to gear high. There are lots of common approaches to that. And small wheels often have more squirrely steering, because it's harder (not impossible) to give them a lot of mechanical trail. This in turn presents a problem for going downhill fast where steering stability matters. Last, of course, the tires wear out faster.

ADVANTAGES. Numerous. Small wheels are far more aerodynamic. They can be much lighter. They are far, far stronger and require fewer spokes. And they have much smaller rotational inertia, translating into faster acceleration and deceleration. Last, they allow for a much wider range of design options, including fairings. Large wheels are quite cumbersome in that regard.

Re: The Toughest Test in Cycling

#29

Post by SixSigma »

andrewfelix wrote: post #23
SixSigma wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It led to attempts like Chris Boardman’s successful one in 2000. He rode ... so far forward that his style was called the Superman position. This sentence made my blood boil

Why?

Obree pioneered the position. Boardman and his team thought he was a joke.
Post reply on HN